K. L. ISSRANI, J. ( 1 ) THE present revision petition is filed against the order dated 26-4-1991, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balaghat, in Claim Case No. 14/89, by which the original owner of the Luna Moped involved in the accident has been ordered to be implicated. ( 2 ) IN this case, the non-applicants are absent in spite of service and S. P. C. issued to them. ( 3 ) THE submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the accident took place on 1-2-1989. The claim petition was filed on 21-7-1989. The written statement was filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd. Malajkhand (the original non-applicant No. 2 in the claim case) on 3-11-1989, in which it was stated that Abdul Aziz (the original non-applicant No. 1) was not the owner of the vehicle. Argument in this case were heard on 15-1-1991 but the application under O. 6, R. 17 read with O. 1, R. 10, C. P. C. was filed only on 22-1-1991, that is beyond the period prescribed under S. 110a of the Motor Vehicles Act, which prescribes a period of six months for filing such an application from the date of occurrence. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the claimant were negligent in bringing the applicant on record beyond the period of limitation. According to the applicant, the principles laid down in Basappa v. Srinivas Reddy, AIR 1982 Kant 30, and which have been relied on by the lower Court are not applicable to the facts of the present case. ( 4 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the applicant, I am of the opinion that this revision petition deserves to be dismissed. For the period of limitation and the authority of the Claims Tribunal to entertain the application beyond the period of limitation, it is necessary to reproduce Sub-Sec. (3) of S. 110a of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which reads as under :"no application for such compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident : provided that the Claims Tribunal may entertain the application after the expiry of the said period of six months if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time. " ( 5 ) THE proviso to Sub-Sec. (3) gives power to the Claims Tribunal to entertain the application after expiry of the period of six months if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time. Under this Sub-Section, the words "sufficient cause" have to be liberally construed in view of the objects of the Act viz. , to provide compensation in respect accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, and the strictness with which an application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act is dealt with is not the standard by which discretion to condone the delay has to be regulated. ( 6 ) THERE are peculiar circumstances in this case. After the accident, a notice was given in this case to the other non-applicants including the Insurance Company. In reply, it was stated by the non-applicant Abdul Aziz that the Luna of his client was insured with the National Insurance Co. Ltd. Malajkhand on 23-12-1983 for, the period up to 22-12-89. In the written statement filed by the said non-applicant, only this much was submitted in paragraph 13 that the Luna involved in this case is not in the ownership of the non-applicant No. 1 before the lower Court (Abdul Aziz ). No further particulars were given. The Insurance Co. Ltd. did not specify in its written statement that the non-applicant Abdul Aziz is not the owner of the Luna but his son Mohd. Sabir is the owner. The applicant Mohd. Sabir before this Court is none else but the son of Abdul Aziz, the nonapplicant No. 1 in the original case. Insurance policy was also not filed by the non-applicants. It was filed by the Insurance Company only on 7-1-1991. Then only the applicant could come to know that the non-applicant No. 1's son Mohd. Sabir is the recorded owner in the insurance. This fact was also confirmed in the arguments by the parties on 15-1-1991. Immediately thereafter an application was moved on 22-1-1991 under O. 1, R. 10, C. P. C. , which was allowed on the same day along with the application under O. 6, R. 17, C. P. C. This order was not challenged by the non-applicant Abdul Aziz. It was only when Mohd. Immediately thereafter an application was moved on 22-1-1991 under O. 1, R. 10, C. P. C. , which was allowed on the same day along with the application under O. 6, R. 17, C. P. C. This order was not challenged by the non-applicant Abdul Aziz. It was only when Mohd. Sabir was served that he filed an objection regarding limitation raised by him which has been rejected by the impugned order. ( 7 ) IN view of the fact that the standard laid down in S. 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable in this case, the order of claims Tribunal seems to be correct. The Claims Tribunal itself gets authority to entertain the application after the period of limitation if is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time. Looking to the circumstances of the case and the facts considered by the Tribunal in its detailed order running into 12 paragraphs, the Tribunal has rightly considered and found that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making application for adding Mohd. Sabir in time. Sufficient cause in this case is a question of fact and not pure question of law and, therefore, cannot be interfered with in revision. ( 8 ) IN the result, the present revision petition is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .